3 ms·
SSL is much more expensive to deliver at scale, it could potentially kill popular non-commercial websites as the costs of hosting would be much more expensive w
by ig1 14y ago
SSL is much more expensive to deliver at scale, it could potentially kill popular non-commercial websites as the costs of hosting would be much more expensive without the caching, etc. that non-SSL permits.
- citizenkeys 14y agoGot any specific details of how this makes hosting more expensive and difficult to scale? If the browser and all web servers have the same certificate, I don't see much of a challenge in going SSL-only. Also, I did some research after posting. Google Chrome now has an HTTPS-only mode: http://www.cgisecurity.com/2009/01/httpsonly-mode-added-to-chrome-browser.html http://www.cgisecurity.com/2009/01/httpsonly-mode-added-to-c... And the EFF has released extensions for Firefox and Chrome that apply HTTPS to all websites: https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
- silvestrov 14y agoSSL uses a lot more cpu on the server for static pages/images. SSL prohibits caching of resources by ISP, universities etc which reduces their internet bill.
- codesuela 14y agoFWIW addressing point 1: The difference in pricing when using Cloudfront for serving 10.000.000 files (in the US) over HTTPS opposed to unencrypted is 2.5$